Levelling up versus democratic localism

Abstract

The Johnson government's pledge to 'level up' in response to regional inequality has been derided for its continuing lack of political substance. Responses from the Labour Party leadership have tended to ignore the development in several parts of the UK of approaches focusing on democratic localism or 'community wealth building', in which local leaders, groups and communities in neglected or 'left behind' areas are not only achieving central aspects of what 'levelling up' promises, but doing so with more progressive principles and intentions than those that underpin the Tory-led project. The obvious example of this is the 'Preston Model', a project brought in over the past decade by a Labour-led city council. While some criticisms of the Preston Model and community wealth building are misconceived, others are valid areas of question or concern for the left, in particular those that centre on the democratic nature of these economic experiments, and the risk that their focus on the spending policies of local or regional authorities ignores the potential for genuinely democratic community decision-making. This article looks at the extent to which community wealth building has integrated or accommodated these concerns; the potential for doing so in future iterations of the strategy; and how a focus on these alternative strategies could offer a path to renewal for the Labour Party nationally.

Myths and Realities of “Left Behind” and “Levelling Up”

“…As has been recognised in previous work on Preston, including my own, the degree to which community wealth‐building has managed to embed itself within local communities as a recognised strategy—engaging with both existing grassroots groups and projects and with ordinary individuals outside of policymakers and think tanks—is currently less than the extent of its success as an institutional strategy based around procurement. The democratic potential of community wealth‐building should be strengthened by ensuring funding and resources are directed by local ideas and priorities, rather than risking replicating previous “technocratic and top‐down” approaches to devolution, including those taken by Conservative governments (see Jones 2022:32–34; Tomaney and Pike 2020:46). However, this should not obscure the positive outcomes of Preston's “progressive procurement” strategy: within its first four years, spending by six of the local institutions involved had risen from £38 million in Preston and £292 million in Lancashire as a whole, to £111 million and £486 million respectively.…”

“… 1 1 The obvious exception here is Labour under Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell's tenure, whose 2017 “Alternative Models of Ownership” report both aligned itself with existing examples of community wealth‐building and included national proposals for restructuring production and extending economic democracy through worker‐ownership schemes and worker buy‐outs of established companies (see Labour 2017). As I have previously written (Jones 2022), these ideas have received little attention after 2019 and the Party's current leadership has instead struggled to promote a series of vacuous “missions” which contain barely more substance than “levelling up”. …”

Radical Urban Classrooms: Civic Pedagogies and Spaces of Learning on the Margins of Institutions

“…In the first instance, it is Live Works’ role to ensure that this time and energy is valued, using its position as mediator to redistribute resources to participants and undertake the reproductive labour necessary to maintain the community of practice and their position in the process. By interrogating the council's brief with a multicultural community of practice, the co‐production process attempts to address claims that the levelling up agenda forces cities to strive to be essentially the same as wealthier regions (Jones 2022). A co‐produced “Castlegate Common Manifesto” commented on by councillors, for example, began the urban development process from the lived experience of participants.…”